Oh no! Not the Fibonacci again!

[Sketchiii]

I remember that Eissak recently went on a rant about this sequence. Headaches were had. But my Aunt had this lecture playing in her car for a good while and I was forced to listen to it:

It seems to be a bit more coherent and convincing. Additionally even if it was a mark of a creator, the vid tries to prove that that creator was yahweh.

I'm young and still working on these skeptic/reasoning skills. I would appreciate it if you guys could reach to about 3/4 of the vid ( how much I had  to listen to) and help me in sifting through the fact/fiction or plain lies and ideas. Its been on my mind and a discussion would help to un(fuck/clutter) my mind.

[Nam]

So you want to force us to listen to it?



-Nam

[Sketchiii]

So you want to force us to listen to it?



-Nam

Ha. It is long isn't it.
Probably have it in the background while doing something.
Just wish to have people to discuss it with since its been on my mind.

[Samothec]

I'm young and still working on these skeptic/reasoning skills. I would appreciate it if you guys could reach to about 3/4 of the vid ( how much I had  to listen to) and help me in sifting through the fact/fiction or plain lies and ideas. Its been on my mind and a discussion would help to un(fuck/clutter) my mind.

I skimmed though about 40 minutes of that and all I saw/heard was a lot of inaccurate (at best) claims coupled with conflating things which should not have been brought together. If you have no clue about science and math and don't pay attention to facts, it sounds good - it sounds authoritative. That doesn't change the fact that it is crap. For example, the bit about rolled up scrolls having a curl that matches the golden ratio - no, not at all. And a similar claim about hurricanes - again, crap. Any old spiral doesn't contain the golden ratio - that is a specific shape.

The golden ratio and Fibonacci sequence are found in nature because nature is quite economical and they represent some of the most economical ways to pattern something. The Fibonacci sequence is created via a simple rule of adding the two most recent numbers to get the next one. One simple rule. Economical. In every life form there is a balancing act between spending and conserving energy from the moment the egg or seed is fertilized. The life form needs to spend energy to develop, grow, gather energy, etc. But if it spends too much, it will die. Always a careful balance. But there is no magic. Majesty, yes. Beautifully economical, yes. Divine magic, no.

[Fiji]

What Samothec said ... plus (and this will be disjoint as I'm typing as I'm going along) that he keeps jumping back and forth between, X IS Fibonacci and Y looks a bit like Fibonacci. But what you remember is "oooh, it's all Fibonacci".
Also, he just plain lies in places. Like where he discusses the bones of the hand. grab a tapemeasure and check it. For the VAST majority of people, you won't find the fibonacci sequence.

He tops this off with jumping back and forth in the bible between verses that just happen to fit, connecting verses entire books apart that have nothing to do with eachother but he draws a links between them anyway.

He also pulls a few number games from his ... holy book. Which, you can do with any sizable book. You could play this game with Harry Potter. One example is the number of times the word 'temple' is used compared with the number of bones in the body. OK, they match up ... so what? If you start with the number of bones in the body, and go looking in the bible for some sort of pattern that adds up to that number, you'll sooner or later find such a pattern.
Remember that Harold Camping joker? He played a similar game and was absolutely sure he had predicted the second coming ... Yet, we still seem to be here.
He also frequently goes "X contains exactly 46/23/4/(whatever number is convenient here) words!" ... ok, in which translation?

"The bible tells us X" ... erm, no, science showed us X, he's just digging up a verse that can be twisted into X.
Which verse tells us how to pull off cold fusion? Warp drive? Cure AIDS? Switch to a hydrogen economy?
None of them, until science figures it out, and then people will be finding bible (or quran for that matter) verses that 'exactly' tell us how to do these thing.

Another big revelation ... The book Genesis matches the word gene!!! Riiiiiight, that might be because they're derived from the same word.

"DNA is sugar!" ... minute or two later ... "DNA is stone!"
If you twist and turn enough ... everything is related to everything.

And to wrap it all up ... whence the link between the golden ratio and the god of the bible ... he may have mentioned this, but what's stopping a Muslim from presenting the golden ratio as proof for Allah's existance? Or a follower of any religion to use it as proof for their god. Neat numbers therefor my particular god ... why?

[harbinger77]

What Samothec said ... plus (and this will be disjoint as I'm typing as I'm going along) that he keeps jumping back and forth between, X IS Fibonacci and Y looks a bit like Fibonacci. But what you remember is "oooh, it's all Fibonacci".
Also, he just plain lies in places. Like where he discusses the bones of the hand. grab a tapemeasure and check it. For the VAST majority of people, you won't find the fibonacci sequence.

He tops this off with jumping back and forth in the bible between verses that just happen to fit, connecting verses entire books apart that have nothing to do with eachother but he draws a links between them anyway.

He also pulls a few number games from his ... holy book. Which, you can do with any sizable book. You could play this game with Harry Potter. One example is the number of times the word 'temple' is used compared with the number of bones in the body. OK, they match up ... so what? If you start with the number of bones in the body, and go looking in the bible for some sort of pattern that adds up to that number, you'll sooner or later find such a pattern.
Remember that Harold Camping joker? He played a similar game and was absolutely sure he had predicted the second coming ... Yet, we still seem to be here.
He also frequently goes "X contains exactly 46/23/4/(whatever number is convenient here) words!" ... ok, in which translation?

"The bible tells us X" ... erm, no, science showed us X, he's just digging up a verse that can be twisted into X.
Which verse tells us how to pull off cold fusion? Warp drive? Cure AIDS? Switch to a hydrogen economy?
None of them, until science figures it out, and then people will be finding bible (or quran for that matter) verses that 'exactly' tell us how to do these thing.

Another big revelation ... The book Genesis matches the word gene!!! Riiiiiight, that might be because they're derived from the same word.

"DNA is sugar!" ... minute or two later ... "DNA is stone!"
If you twist and turn enough ... everything is related to everything.

And to wrap it all up ... whence the link between the golden ratio and the god of the bible ... he may have mentioned this, but what's stopping a Muslim from presenting the golden ratio as proof for Allah's existance? Or a follower of any religion to use it as proof for their god. Neat numbers therefor my particular god ... why?

I didn't know the #bones can be related to the #of times the word temple is used. I think that's awesome. I agree that christians do this and sometimes it's a stretch. Considering one of those times is "the body is the temple of the holy spirit" Just awesome, Sometimes it's coincidence sometimes it seems more than that.

[Fiji]

I didn't know the #bones can be related to the #of times the word temple is used. I think that's awesome. I agree that christians do this and sometimes it's a stretch. Considering one of those times is "the body is the temple of the holy spirit" Just awesome, Sometimes it's coincidence sometimes it seems more than that.

How would you go about figuring out hich ones are coincidence and which point towards a god?
Muslims play this game too, you know. "The word 'day' appears 365 times in the Quran!!!" and such.

[relativetruth]

Fibonacci

Add the last two numbers together to get another number based on those two.

Is that not like evolution?

Coincidence?

[wheels5894]

Oh dear! I started to watch the guy and right off the bat he has things wrong. He talks of the age of the universe as being 15 billion instead of 13.8 billion for example. he would do well to get the facts right - even if he doesn't believe them.

I gave up where we were going to be shown how Genesis describes the forming of the universe and, I suppose, we were going to ignore that the earth was there already!

Don't waste time on that goon!

[harbinger77]

Oh dear! I started to watch the guy and right off the bat he has things wrong. He talks of the age of the universe as being 15 billion instead of 13.8 billion for example. he would do well to get the facts right - even if he doesn't believe them.

I gave up where we were going to be shown how Genesis describes the forming of the universe and, I suppose, we were going to ignore that the earth was there already!

Don't waste time on that goon!

You are wrong on one point. In your view The Bible has earth hanging out in nothing. The bible actually has it hanging in the heavens. Space is called, by the Christians, the 2nd heaven. As it says, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth." Your confusion comes from the earth being created before the Sun moon and stars.

u·ni·verse (y n -vûrs )
n.1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things. (look at that. created things. hmm)
2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

I have to ask. The universe by it's definition must contain the earth. We can see human pride all over this definition. If the earth blew away tomorrow would the universe no longer BE the universe? Of course it would. Conversely, Could it not be the universe if it contained no stars?

[jdawg70]

You are wrong on one point. In your view The Bible has earth hanging out in nothing. The bible actually has it hanging in the heavens. Space is called, by the Christians, the 2nd heaven. As it says, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth." Your confusion comes from the earth being created before the Sun moon and stars.

u·ni·verse (y n -vûrs )
n.1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things. (look at that. created things. hmm)

Well look at that - some person decided to declare the universe is the Earth and it was created.  Big whoop.  Some jacka** within a 30 mile radius of you probably decided to declare the universe to be an illusion.  What's you're point?  Where did you get this idiotic definition of the word 'universe'?

'Universe' can also be defined as the central repository of software containing all GPL-sanctioned code for the Ubuntu operating system[1].  What does that have to do with anything?

2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

I have to ask. The universe by it's definition must contain the earth. We can see human pride all over this definition.

Do what now?  Because the Earth exists, and the universe contains everything that exists, then, yes, by definition, the universe contains the Earth.  Where you see human pride in that is beyond me.  No one[2] is saying that the universe must contain the Earth in order to exist.  You're doing English backwards or something.

If the earth blew away tomorrow would the universe no longer BE the universe? Of course it would.  Conversely, Could it not be the universe if it contained no stars?

What intellectually-challenged idiot would declare the universe wouldn't exist if the Earth blew up?  If the Earth blew up, then the Earth would no longer exist[3], ergo, it would no longer be in the universe[4].  That is...obvious.  Your 'conversely' is also confusing.

Honestly, your whole post is a confusing mess.  You seem to think that semantic definitions control the state of objective reality rather than describe the state of objective reality.

1.	I'm doing this from the hip and don't really remember how the Ubuntu or Debian repositories categorize things.  Doesn't detract from my point.
2.	well, maybe the solipsists, but good luck getting them to say anything coherent
3.	well, yeah, the remnants of the Earth would exist, but those remnants scattered about all over the place would not be thought of as Earth
4.	Again, I recognize the matter and energy that comprised (note the past tense) the Earth would still exist in the universe, but no longer would the planet Earth exist.

[nogodsforme]

Ummm. I'm not sure I get your point, harbinger. The universe includes everything we know of. So of course that includes the earth and everything on it, plus our moon, plus Saturn, plus Saturn's 62 moons and everything else in this solar system and everything else in the Milky Way galaxy, plus everything in all the other galaxies, plus lots of random stars, black holes, meteors, comets, and so on.

Why would it be prideful to include the earth in a definition of the universe? If you were describing a chocolate chip cookie, wouldn't you assume that all the chocolate chips  in the cookie are included in the definition? It is just a fact-- seems strange to leave one out.

That would be prideful, as if the earth is the one little chocolate chip that should be singled out as special in some way. There are lots of other solar systems and lots of other planets in the universe. The odds are that earth is no more special than one chocolate chip in a cookie full of them.

[harbinger77]

I didn't know the #bones can be related to the #of times the word temple is used. I think that's awesome. I agree that christians do this and sometimes it's a stretch. Considering one of those times is "the body is the temple of the holy spirit" Just awesome, Sometimes it's coincidence sometimes it seems more than that.

How would you go about figuring out hich ones are coincidence and which point towards a god?
Muslims play this game too, you know. "The word 'day' appears 365 times in the Quran!!!" and such.

In a word discernment. Like I said most are just amusing little factoids. 

Why wouldn't God play number games though. As far as I can tell God likes numbers. 3And12 are themes throughout scriptures.

As for the Qu'an I would expect some number games there. As it is inspired too. just not from the same source.

[Graybeard]

You are wrong on one point. In your view The Bible has earth hanging out in nothing. The bible actually has it hanging in the heavens.

Actually, it is supported on pillars.

However, I think this is what your idea of the world is like:

[harbinger77]

 The post that I had replied to was suggesting that The Bible tells a story where the earth is created and hung in nothing I guess, and then the universe after that. I pointed out his mistake in his understanding of creation. By demonstrating that there can be a universe with no earth it is also true there can be a universe even if it contains no stars. This was the root of his misunderstanding. Creation of stars = creation of the universe.

 The human pride comes in when they specifically  mentioned Earth. It goes without saying. Rather than just saying all planets or something along that line. They had to make their chip in the cookie more special than the rest. Typical human pride.

I don't see how this was hard to follow.

[ParkingPlaces]

. The human pride comes in when they specifically  mentioned Earth. It goes without saying. Rather than just saying all planets or something along that line. They had to make their chip in the cookie more special than the rest. Typical human pride.

I don't see how this was hard to follow.

Does extrapolating like that hurt? I've never had the guts to try.

Thy universe, by definition, contains a bunch of stuff. Take away a little, and it still the universe. Take away all the stuff and it ceases to be the universe.  At least as it is current defined.

The earth is little. Everything else is big. Your sample size was a bit excessive.

[harbinger77]

You are wrong on one point. In your view The Bible has earth hanging out in nothing. The bible actually has it hanging in the heavens.

Actually, it is supported on pillars.

However, I think this is what your idea of the world is like:

Graybeard- forgive me for assuming or maybe I'm using the wrong vocabulary. There is something though, even if I can't put my finger on just the right word. Why are you so.. spiteful, bitter, maybe angry? Maybe it goes deeper than you wish to discuss but there seems to be something there.

For the rest of you No, this has nothing to do with this specific post. I find the picture rather amusing.

[Willie]

u·ni·verse (y n -vûrs )
n.1. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things. (look at that. created things. hmm)
2. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

I looked up the word "universe" on half a dozen or so online dictionaries, and not one of them gives your #1 definition as the primary definition. One of them (www.thefreedictionary.com citing American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) does, however, include that definition, verbatim, and the other two as well. They're numbers 2a, 2b, and 3. Number 1 was: "All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.", which agrees reasonably well with the primary definitions given by the other dictionaries that I looked at.

Tell us, harbinger77, where did you find a dictionary that lists your #1 definition first? And if you did not, in fact, find such a dictionary, why did you misrepresent (as well as fail to cite) your source? Can you understand why doing that would be perceived as dishonest, or at least ill conceived?

[Anfauglir]

How would you go about figuring out hich ones are coincidence and which point towards a god?

In a word discernment. Like I said most are just amusing little factoids. 

That, sir, is not an answer.  It is a weasel response that allows you to pick and choose whichever coincidences you want to prove the point du jour, with no possibility of ever being proved wrong.

Why not have a stab at ACTUALLY answering the question.  Give us a list of the rules that you use to figure out which are coincidence and which point to a god, THEN we can go through the Bible and see if they work.  Simply saying "oh, I can see them" just highlights your confirmation bias and sidesteps Fiji's question.

The human pride comes in when they specifically  mentioned Earth. It goes without saying. Rather than just saying all planets or something along that line. They had to make their chip in the cookie more special than the rest. Typical human pride.

Whoooah there.  Didn't Yahweh create the Earth specifically for humans?  Is it NOT the most important part of the universe, waaaay more so than all the other planets and asteroids?  So I don't see how anyone could be accused of being "prideful" by putting priority on the earth - by your standards, its just a straight fact, surely?

[wheels5894]

Gray beard, I like your picture but I rather think those stars are embedded in the dome over the earth. The following is based on the bible texts of Genesis, Psalms and Job. It is remarkably like the way the Greeks saw it too.



Now the odd thing about this is that it is nothing at all like the universe we now know about. It really has nothing in common. now there is a reason for that - it how the ancient peoples understood astronomy. The Greek were ahead and by the time of Jesus had worked out the earth as a sphere and even worked out a rough dimension but the Hebrews were quite content to stick with the 'discworld' understanding.

Of course, even the act of creation isn't what it is claimed. God started with the earth covered in water so I imagine the above picture a bit wetter and nthen he dries out a patch and the job is done - unless even that happened on its own.

If you want to quote the bible to help with your claims, Harbinger, make sure they really do help.

[Graybeard]

Graybeard- forgive me

You are forgiven -Joh:5:14b Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

for assuming or maybe I'm using the wrong vocabulary.

There may be hope for you. But yes, you are using the vocabulary of a person who rejects what we know in favour of what was the concept 3,000 years ago.

There is something though, even if I can't put my finger on just the right word.

Try... try...

Why are you so.. spiteful, bitter, maybe angry?

Ga:4:16: Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Maybe it goes deeper than you wish to discuss but there seems to be something there.

Well, you seem to spend a lot of time thinking that things that don't exist, actually do, so, I suppose, I should not be too surprised if you imagine my words carry a meaning that they do not.

Gray beard, I like your picture but I rather think those stars are embedded in the dome over the earth. The following is based on the bible texts of Genesis, Psalms and Job. It is remarkably like the way the Greeks saw it too.

Many thanks for that to-scale and accurate map. I'm sure it will be a great help to Bible-Believing Christians.

[Anfauglir]

Why are you so.. spiteful, bitter, maybe angry?

Ga:4:16: Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

Maybe it goes deeper than you wish to discuss but there seems to be something there.

Well, you seem to spend a lot of time thinking that things that don't exist, actually do, so, I suppose, I should not be too surprised if you imagine my words carry a meaning that they do not.

When you've not got an answer to the question, attack the motives of the questioner.  Always a good way for believers to sidetrack away from the issue at hand.  Not that they are judging, or anything.

[harbinger77]

How would you go about figuring out hich ones are coincidence and which point towards a god?

In a word discernment. Like I said most are just amusing little factoids. 

That, sir, is not an answer.  It is a weasel response that allows you to pick and choose whichever coincidences you want to prove the point du jour, with no possibility of ever being proved wrong.

Why not have a stab at ACTUALLY answering the question.  Give us a list of the rules that you use to figure out which are coincidence and which point to a god, THEN we can go through the Bible and see if they work.  Simply saying "oh, I can see them" just highlights your confirmation bias and sidesteps Fiji's question.

The human pride comes in when they specifically  mentioned Earth. It goes without saying. Rather than just saying all planets or something along that line. They had to make their chip in the cookie more special than the rest. Typical human pride.

Whoooah there.  Didn't Yahweh create the Earth specifically for humans?  Is it NOT the most important part of the universe, waaaay more so than all the other planets and asteroids?  So I don't see how anyone could be accused of being "prideful" by putting priority on the earth - by your standards, its just a straight fact, surely?

biased absolutely! narrow minded concerning God? Yes sir!
As an unsaved individual I'm sorry but you can't get it
it's all foolishness to those who are perishing. discernment is something you pray for. Unless you plan on hitting your knees and having a conversation with God... You will never understand.

as for the pride thing, I'm speaking to humanists why would I present it outside your thinking?
I don't understand how this off hand comment has you all so bothered. Unless you all just gotta have something to argue about?

[harbinger77]

One more thing Earth was not made for us...

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in
heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers: all things were created by
him, and FOR him:

I can see where your confusion would come from though.

[Anfauglir]

How would you go about figuring out which ones are coincidence and which point towards a god?

In a word discernment. Like I said most are just amusing little factoids. 

That, sir, is not an answer.  It is a weasel response that allows you to pick and choose whichever coincidences you want to prove the point du jour, with no possibility of ever being proved wrong.

Why not have a stab at ACTUALLY answering the question.  Give us a list of the rules that you use to figure out which are coincidence and which point to a god, THEN we can go through the Bible and see if they work.  Simply saying "oh, I can see them" just highlights your confirmation bias and sidesteps Fiji's question.

biased absolutely! narrow minded concerning God? Yes sir!
As an unsaved individual I'm sorry but you can't get it
it's all foolishness to those who are perishing. discernment is something you pray for. Unless you plan on hitting your knees and having a conversation with God... You will never understand.

Great!  So, you have prayed, and now discern what passages are coincidence, and which ones are not.  So then.....

1) EVERY Christian that prays will therefore have the same discernment.  Something is either a coincidence, or will point towards a god, surely?  Or is your point that ANY statement in the Bible could be evidence of god, or a coincidence, depending on the person?

2) YOU have prayed (I presume), and so your god has provided you the discernment.  Great!  You therefore CAN do exactly what I asked for: to explain the process by which you look at a line, and "discern" whether it is evidence, or not.  Or are you saying that your god has NOT so far granted you an all encompassing "discernment"?

3) What you seem to be saying with your "unsaved" comment is that the only way one can understand how the Bible points to god....is if you have already accepted that there IS a god.  Because why would I pray for the ability to discern the parts of the Bible that reveal god to me, if I already believed that god exists?  And if I've not got the discernment to already have god revealed to me, naturally I am not going to pray to something that I do not believe exists.  So you've described a very neat little Catch-22 there, haven't you?  "You'll only get the evidence for god when you already believe". 

Why do you think your god made it so deliberately difficult to "find" him?  I thought he wanted us to find him, am I wrong about that?

[Anfauglir]

One more thing Earth was not made for us...

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and FOR him:

I stand corrected.

So can you explain why I should in any way feel grateful for anything your god created, if it was all done just for HIM?  Sure - I may get some passing enjoyment from it, but if he made it entirely for his own purposes (as you've just explained), by what reasoning should I give thanks for any of it?

[ParkingPlaces]

Well, thanks to Harbinger, we now know that the christian claim that the earth was made for us is wrong. I, for one, am keeping that bible verse around.

There was no need to finely tune a universe made for Him. He doesn't need any niche's. He can handle everything he throws at himself.

Why he made scorpions that couldn't sting him I dunno, but I guess it made sense at the time.

I am enjoying this conversation. Keep at it guys. And to whomever it may concern, DUCK!

Added: To god, earth must be like the ultimate reality show. Fake, scripted and boring. But I'll bet he's making a fortune off of ad revenues.

[Astreja]

So can you explain why I should in any way feel grateful for anything your god created, if it was all done just for HIM?  Sure - I may get some passing enjoyment from it, but if he made it entirely for his own purposes (as you've just explained), by what reasoning should I give thanks for any of it?

Já, that's kind of like being expected to say "Thank you" when your spouse buys you the pool table he's always wanted for your birthday.   

[jdawg70]

Já, that's kind of like being expected to say "Thank you" when your spouse buys you the pool table he's always wanted for your birthday.